Barnes & Nobleinfoseekad

Home
AllPolitics
 

 Home
 News
 Analysis
 Community
 CNN.com

Related Stories

 Click here for more Congressional Quarterly's in-depth political coverage.


Search


  Help

The Religious Right's Foreign Policy Revival

By Miles A. Pomper, CQ Staff Writer

(CQ, May 9) -- Religious conservatives, who have focused almost exclusively on domestic issues since the end of the Cold War, are turning anew to foreign policy, saying America has lost its moral compass. But as they try to revive Ronald Reagan's approach to world affairs, they find it difficult to resurrect the political coalition that backed those policies.

As demonstrated by last year's battle over China's trade status and the current debate over a bill aimed at fighting religious persecution overseas (HR2431), their traditional allies in the Republican Party are torn. Should the GOP support the goals of religious groups or other foreign policy objectives, from free trade to national security to limiting immigration?

The religious persecution bill, a top priority of the Christian Coalition and similar groups, is scheduled to be taken up by the House next week. Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, predicted May 5 that it would pass by "overwhelming numbers."

Yet, even though the legislation has won support from a range of religious and human rights groups and members of both parties, supporters will have trouble claiming a broad mandate for their legislation.

It took sponsors a year to fashion a bill-- and enough compromises -- to clear the principal committee involved, International Relations, on March 26.

As the legislation moved through two other committees, opponents watered down some of its strongest provisions, demonstrating the challenges religious conservatives might face as they seek to play a larger role on foreign policy issues. The bill still will have to be meshed with a Senate measure (S1868) that some House members consider even less stringent.

"I think they have found out foreign policy is a little bit more complicated than they had believed," said Rep. Doug Bereuter, R-Neb. "You can't simply say, 'This is the bill we want, no changes.' "

Rep. Frank R. Wolf, R-Va., originally introduced the legislation with the strong backing of House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga. It included a list of provisions designed to punish countries that endorse or permit violent attacks against religious believers.

Some of these provisions remain in the bill, including restrictions on exports, a prohibition on all non-humanitarian aid, U.S. opposition to loans by multilateral development banks and the International Monetary Fund, and a denial of visas to those identified as persecutors.

But in recent weeks, three House panels, each concerned with different aspects of the legislation, have weakened portions of the bill.

Worried that the measure would undermine a 1996 immigration law (PL 104-208), the House Judiciary Committee on May 6 chose not to reinstate an important provision in the bill that had been deleted by its Immigration and Claims Subcommittee

That provision would have automatically granted members of persecuted religious groups an asylum hearing, exempting them from provisions of the 1996 law that require them to first prove a "credible fear" of persecution or face deportation.

Opponents of the provision, such as subcommittee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, had complained that the measure might encourage false asylum claims and illegal immigration.

The Judiciary Committee, however, endorsed a compromise that makes it more likely that victims of religious persecution will qualify as refugees and calls for additional training on religious discrimination for immigration judges and officers.

In another setback for supporters, the Ways and Means Committee, acting the same day, voted to strip out provisions banning trade with and investment in Sudan. Wolf and other supporters had singled out Sudan's government because of its "holy war" against Christians in the southern half of the country, including murder, crucifixions, torture and slavery.

But panel members objected, saying that imposing unilateral sanctions would not stem persecution and would harm other interests. "I see the bill as a legislative monster threatening U. S. national security and economic interests in a vain attempt to make the bill's sponsors look better than those opposing them," said Trade Subcommittee Chairman Philip M. Crane, R-Ill.

After removing the Sudan provisions, the panel took the unusual tack of voting out the bill without a recommendation to the House.

In March, the International Relations Committee, responding to administration concerns, voted to give the secretary of State, rather than the director of a new Office of Religious Persecution, greater control over which countries to threaten with sanctions.

Jim Leach, R-Iowa, chairman of the House Banking and Financial Services Committee, said that his panel will likely decline to act on the bill, but that he would recommend to congressional leaders that Export-Import Bank loans not be used as sanctions.

The Senate is soon to consider alternative legislation by Assistant Majority Leader Don Nickles, R-Okla., that would address more forms of religious persecution than the House measure but would give the president a broader menu of options when punishing foreign countries.

Strategic Interests

The fight over the bill is the latest round in a larger conflict.

Since the 1996 presidential election, some conservative religious groups have put a renewed emphasis on foreign policy, arguing that the United States in the post-Cold War era has lost its way, driven too much by business and short-term strategic interests.

As Gary L. Bauer, president of the Family Research Council, said in an April 13 speech at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, "America's foreign and domestic policy are morally inseparable -- what we do abroad will always reveal what we are at home."

Wolf and some other lawmakers agree.

"This country has been blessed by God," Wolf said. "We have to be faithful to our fundamental values of liberty. . . . We need to put back some morality in foreign policy."

Robert Kagan, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said such views were intended to appeal to a Republican constituency that strongly supported Ronald Reagan's anti-communist foreign policy but that feels neglected by the current Republican leadership.

"They can get a lot of mileage out of the Reaganite stuff, out of the Reaganite impulse," Kagan said.

Religious conservatives say Republicans need their support on foreign policy legislation. "If they ignore our interests, they run the risk of alienating a constituency out there that makes up one-third of the electorate," said Randy Tate, executive director of the Christian Coalition.

But many Republicans remain unconvinced, saying that U.S. interests, even on human rights, are better served in the long term when subordinated to other foreign policy concerns.

"We simply cannot allow foreign policy to become an extension of domestic politics," Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said in an April 10 speech to the Kansas Press Association. "I am not saying these debates on the great moral and religious issues should not take place. I am merely arguing that we will not build successful foreign or trade policy by making the rest of the world conform to our way of life and our views of how we want things to be."

Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., said it was "a mindless way to approach foreign policy. . . . I am concerned that we are drifting in the direction of these religious groups that see the world in absolute black and white."

Caught in the crossfire are lawmakers such as Sen. Daniel R. Coats, R-Ind.

Coats is known on Capitol Hill for his adherence to conservative social causes, from opposing abortion to supporting school choice. But he said he has found it harder to line up with his religious conservative allies on some foreign policy issues, such as granting most-favored-nation trade status to China.

On that vote, some religious conservatives opposed allowing regular trade with China, because China is alleged to persecute Christians. (1997 CQ Weekly, p. 1536)

But Coats said he supported continued trade for its own benefits and because other religious groups said cutting off trade would cause China to restrict their missionary activities.

"It becomes a problem when religious conservatives take a specific issue and attach it to a broader agenda," Coats said. "I was torn, I was very torn."

Boxscore

Bills: HR2431 (H Rept 105-480, Part I); S1868 -- Religious persecution.

Latest action: House Judiciary and Ways and Means committees approved HR2431 by voice vote May 6.

Next likely action: House floor debate.

© 1998 Congressional Quarterly Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Congressional Quarterly This Week

Saturday May 9, 1998

Hubbell Tapes Imbroglio Puts Gop Finance Probe On The Defensive
Campaign Finance Issue Could Be Key To Expensive Kentucky Battle
Trial Lawyers Take Skills From Court To Campaigns
Space Station Backers Warn NASA To Bring Costs Down To Earth
The Religious Right's Foreign Policy Revival


Archives   |   CQ News   |   TIME On Politics   |   Feedback   |   Help

Copyright © 1998 AllPolitics All Rights Reserved.
Terms under which this information is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines.
Who we are.